forgottenrealmsfandomcom-20200223-history
Talk:Deva (aasimar)
I fixed the spelling on the Religion title. Should tieflings be referred to as the Aasimar/Deva's evil-aligned counterpart if (and conversely should a Deva be explicitly called good-aligned?), in the tiefling article it is stated that they can be of any alignment, just like a deva?--DarastrixUxBahumati 17:37, 31 December 2008 (UTC) :I have made this edit in an attempt to clarify that particular sentence. Fw190a8 01:03, 2 January 2009 (UTC) Aasimar This article seems to combine devas with aasimar. Is there any actual official source that says devas and aasimar are the same thing? ➳Quin 00:13, 23 August 2009 (UTC) Should most of this article be moved to the Deva (Angel) and the article renamed. --Cliffracerslayer 20:57, October 9, 2009 (UTC) I too am uncomfortable with the apparant confusion between Aasimar and Deva. As I understood it Aasimar are mortal beings, the angelic equivalent of Tieflings, not beings that have a society of their own, nor with a special relationship to life and death. As I understood it they are conceived in the normal way, born in the normal way and die in the normal way. I feel uneasy about doing so but I will try establish that Deva's are separate from Aasimar, the former being the semi-mortal servants of the celestial planes and Aasimar should have their own section within the Deva article explaining that Aasimar are the product of unions between Deva but that while Deva are sometimes referred to as Aasimar these are not what is normally understood by the term. :After reading the article, I understand your concerns here. I am totally confused however. This appears to be yet another 4th edition moment of madness. So far, I have been able to establish that in 3e, these things were called aasimar (Races of Faerûn, p.112, and they were renamed devas in 4e (Forgotten Realms Player's Guide, p.21). The pictures on this article look nothing like the aasimar picture in Races of Faerûn (again, p.112). In 3e, was there already a creature called a deva? Does this mean that in 4e, we have two completely different creatures with the same name? Or does this mean that aasimar are devas? Fw190a8 (talk · ) 22:20, October 9, 2009 (UTC) --Cliffracerslayer 23:28, October 9, 2009 (UTC) I believe that Devas *are* Aasimar but that not all Aasimar *are* Devas. I tried to edit the entire article as follows. The Devas are spiritual beings that are immortal as it says. However rather than creating a new body from scratch which is silly, they possess the bodies of Aasimar in the following manner. They don't overide control over the Aasimar body which would be evil. Instead they merge themselves with the soul of the Aasimar. The Aasimar's soul loses it's seperate existence and becomes a part of the Deva, but in the return the Aasimar becomes immortal as a part of the Aasimar and will not die and go to the Fugue plan but remain attached to the Deva forever. This does not alter the Aasimar's body however, so to all other intents and purposes they are the same creature. I rewrote the entire article along those lines, but my edit went all wrong so nothing got saved. Anyway this is pretty sound if creative solution in my opinion for the Aasimar/Deva question. As for the pictures, they are outsiders and very diverse in appearance. It doesn't matter much what they look like in the pictures since they could just be descended from odd looking Celestials and still be Aasimar/Deva. :Do you have a source that says this, or is this just speculation on your part? Please sign your posts at the end instead of the beginning. Fw190a8 (talk · ) 02:49, October 10, 2009 (UTC) It's 'speculation' but it's the explanation that makes sense of the information and requires the least changes to the article, keeping in a modified way the majority of the sourced information. It allows a distinction to be made as is necessary between Aasimar, but without them being different races as such. Given Aasimar and Deva are already merged, then it follows that the logical solution is to merge Aasimar and Deva by making the latter in some way the 'evolved' form of the former. At the moments bits of the article seem to refer to Aasamar and others to these new Deva creatures. Thus I will draw a distinction in the article between the two but one that does not require them to be separate creatures with a separate article. --Cliffracerslayer 09:07, October 10, 2009 (UTC) :I do appreciate your desire to clean up this whole aasimar/deva business, and I share a stake in it also. The wiki puts a high priority on reliability, and that means going back to the original sources. If a statement cannot be attributed to a particular source, it should not appear on wiki. :In the context of maintaining a single-article approach, provided that each statement still maintains its original source (disregarding any unsourced information in the article as inconsequential), I agree that splitting it into "things we can assert about aasimar" and "things we can assert about devas" is a good idea. The aasimar/deva issue will most likely be a bone of contention between 3rd edition fans and those who have adopted 4th edition, so we ought to maintain neutrality by avoiding the implication that one is "right". :With regard to your editing, I understand that Wikia have recently introduced a rich text editor, which will probably be turned on by default on your account, and is completely at odds with wiki editing, so I am going to blame that for your difficulties in editing the article. You can turn it off by going to your preferences (should be at the top right), the editing tab, and unchecking rich text editor. You might then find it easier to edit. Fw190a8 (talk · ) 10:05, October 10, 2009 (UTC) The edit has been done. I decided against my original idea of having Deva possess Aasimar in in favour of having them assume bodies upon incarnation as in the source but Aasimar bodies. In this way Deva and Aasimar are the same race, but in such a way that all Devas are Aasimar but not all Aasimar are Devas. I kept most of the sourced material, even the bits the irritated me a bit, but have changed Deva to Aasimar, except where the immortal reincarnating beings are clearly being referred too. They are the same being but their origins are different. I added a paragraph to explain this admittadly not a sourced paragraph but a neccesery one for clarity. However I appear to have deleted the creature summary and the alignment board. I have put the image back in though. --Cliffracerslayer 10:42, October 10, 2009 (UTC) I seem to have screwed up the references as well. Is it possible to revert the article, copy the references and then revert the article all over again having copied the references back? --Cliffracerslayer 11:26, October 10, 2009 (UTC) References now fixed. --Cliffracerslayer 11:26, October 10, 2009 (UTC) Creature box back in. No longer neutrally aligned since creature alignment refers to the typical alignments of a creature which should be good for devas, not all alignments that a creature of that type may have. The can be neutral but they can also be evil so why should they be consider neutrally aligned specially? --Cliffracerslayer 11:54, October 10, 2009 (UTC) :Your edit appears to consist mainly of changing the word "deva" to "aasimar". Since we have already established that, in 4th edition, the aasimar has been renamed to deva, and the article is actually called "Deva", "deva" should really be the term used in this article, except at the beginning, where it would be a good idea to establish the fact that the two terms mean the same thing. Before you edited it, the article already said this, and was sourced. If they really do mean different things, and the sources can show it, we need two separate articles. :The only paragraph I can see that explains the differences between aasimar and devas begins "But since the physical forms taken by devas are those of aasimar, devas and aasimar can be considered the same race..." but this paragraph is entirely unreferenced, and I'm not sure it has any basis in the source material. :Considering the lack of sources for your assertions on the nature of the relationship between the terms "aasimar" and "deva", and considering that your interpretation of the material has been the sole motivation behind the edits you've made, I'm afraid I'm not sure if they will hold up. Certainly the aasimar/deva situation is not clear to me from reading the current article, so I imagine a layman would have further difficulties. :I appreciate that you might not agree with the source material's handling of the subject, particularly between editions, and that it might even be irritating, but the wiki is not a place for speculation, and all edits should follow the source material. For now, I have just made a few adjustments to your edits (the template image was absolutely huge and there was a lot of unnecessary whitespace). I think the article does still need more work and re-examination of the sources so that it is incredibly simple to understand. That said, I appreciate your desire to improve the article and the work you have done so far. Fw190a8 (talk · ) 13:25, October 10, 2009 (UTC) :To add to the above, I have also dug up this thread on the Wizards forums, which seems to confirm that absolutely everyone is confused by the 4e changes. Fw190a8 (talk · ) 13:30, October 10, 2009 (UTC) You are correct the great majority of my changes consist of changing the names of things, so as to indicate what pertains specifically to Devas, by drawing an internal distinction. I made a few minor changes to the sourced text otherwise in order to make it grammatically make sense but that it. I did add that paragraph and it is not sourced. Instead it is a logical deduction from the sourced material, required in order for the collected material to make sense and not contradict itself. It is there so that the person reading the article knows the underlying logic that allows Devas and Aasimar to be different and yet be the same kind of creature. It's not so bad, entire articles exist on this wiki that have not a single source at all. I did what I did in order to make sense of the article without getting rid of all the information. The article already says there is a distinction when it says that Devas are outside of the cycle of life and death. However it also says that Devas can be the result of unions between celestials and mortals, yet it said that the human descendants of the Devas "are often mistaken for the immortals". If they are mistaken for the immortals, then logically this is because they are very similar indeed to the Devas if not identical. However a distinction between the immortal devas and their 'human' children similar enough to be mistaken for those devas is made. It also says that these are the normal result of unions between celestials and mortals though using poor language. this most likely commonly refers to the human descendants of devas, who are sometimes mistaken for the immortals. These 'human' children sound a lot like the Aasimar were all know and love before nasty 4E edition innovations ruined our peace and mind so I renamed them to be such. Aasimar as it says under history are not concieved into existance, they migrated here. There it says that Devas are migrant celestial servitors in origin that 'needed bodies'. Either the gods and angels were perfectly chaste before this event, or Devas are not just any old celestial/human hybrids. It says quite clearly that Devas cannot reproduce, but has already referred to emergent celestial bloodlines, which cannot exist if they cannot reproduce at least partly celestial offspring. I make a distinction between Aasamar and Deva so that they can remain the same creature with a single article. It is a necessary evil because in truth the distinction was already made in the article itself, which was why it is such a mess. --Cliffracerslayer 16:12, October 10, 2009 (UTC) The fourth edition Player's Handbook 2 contains an entire section about the deva. Nowhere in it does it mention the word "aasimar." I believe the author of this wiki article confused the deva with the aasimar because the new sourcebook stated that there were also deva who lived among mortals on the Prime Material Plane, whereas the older sourcebooks simply said they lived in the celestial planes without mentioning that they lived in the mortal realms. There is nowhere in the new sourcebook which states or even implies that deva and aasimar are the same, and so I believe that this article should be reverted back to before this confusion was made (including being moved back to the Aasimar title), and that the Deva (angel) article should be moved here to Deva. Of course, we could always simply ask the authors themselves about this at the Candlekeep forums or "The one and only 'Ask the Realms authors/designers thread'." ➳Quin 04:00, October 26, 2009 (UTC) That Devas assumed humanoid form is already stated under Movanic Devas in the Deva section. As such the Devas in this article resemble that type of Deva. The only justification for the merger of the articles would be that Devas assume the forms of Aaasimar. However I would be happy to see the articles separated from each-other if my take on things cannot be made 'official'. --Cliffracerslayer 10:01, October 28, 2009 (UTC) Splitting article? Like others, I'm not entirely satisfied with the current arrangement. The article, as written, muddles in 3rd edition and 4th edition waters confusingly for readers who are not aware of the actual canon. This is not the fault of any one editor but rather the result of WotC's own muddle approach to the issue. That being said, we can determine two things (as others have said): # Devas are aasimar. This is written straight up in the FRPG. # However, not all aasimar are necessarily devas. The "Ecology of the Deva" article in Dragon seems to verify this, with its talk about "deva lineage." This would indicate that some of the celestial plane-born races are, in fact, deva-descended versions of their mortal race. So while many aasimar are devas, others are likely humans with a few deva-inherited abilities. Note, for instance, that mortals descended from devas have an ability very similar to the 3rd edition variant of the spell light, which was a racial ability for aasimar - but is not a racial ability for devas. I propose we split the deva article into two articles: aasimar and deva. Aasimar would cover the cultural label of "aasimar," Mulhorandi in origin, which would detail both devas and deva-descended humans (as well as other planetouched humans with celestial heritage). The deva article, however, would specifically cover the angelic race. This is not a perfect solution but, unfortunately in this case, WotC has not left us with a lot of options. Unlike the division of the Tel-quessir, which Brian R. James and Rich Baker have been willing to speak about in great detail, no one seems to want to touch this with a ten foot pole. Niirfa-sa 23:57, December 12, 2009 (UTC) :That sounds like a great solution. But where in the Forgotten Realms Campaign Guide does it say that devas are aasimar? ➳Quin 06:40, December 14, 2009 (UTC) :: FRPG, p. 21. Same as sourced within the article (although the citations seem to be out of order for some reason). It's not the FRCG however, but rather the Player's Guide, under the subsection of the second chapter entitled "Other Races." According to the entry, aasimar is a Mulhorandi word (as would be aasimon then, the synonym for angels). Not sure where the name deva comes from (other than the obvious Hindu source) but it's apparently more common by 1479 DR. Niirfa-sa 08:38, December 14, 2009 (UTC) Name confusion I don't think Aasimar even exist in 4e. To avoid confusion, the only reference to Deva on an Aasimar page and vice versa should be to point out that (1) aasimar is a mulhorandi word for Deva and (2) the two are otherwise not to be confused. The aasimar in 3e were mortal descendants of angels. There's no analogous RACE in 4e. The closest you get is a PC that takes the Deva Heritage feat. 4e Devas are not 3e aasimars. They are (at least in FR) servants of the gods who descended to Mulhorand with their deific masters and IIRC became stuck on Faerûn when those deific masters were killed (I'm away from my book but this is detailed in the 4e Forgotten Realms Players Guide). They reincarnate when killed, which is an ability the 3e aasimars certainly never had. 02:15, April 15, 2010 (UTC) 4th edition does not canonically exist in the in-game universe; much the same as 3rd edition. Unless all Aasimar were killed off in the Spell-plague, the transitional event, then Aasimar do still canonically exist. Deva are Aasimar, this is what caused the problem in the first place. But since they are immortals, no way can they be Aasimar, since the latter are the celestial equivalent of Tieflings. That is the mortal children of Half-Celestials and Humans (Angels and mortals create Half-Celestials). The best solution to this problem is to establish that Devas are biologically indistinguishable from Aasimar, aside from their origins, so that Devas *are* a form of Aasimar, because that is the physical form taken by the *true* Deva (that is the spirits). Their physical forms are modeled or patterned after Aasimar, but they themselves are not. Possibly they kept their angelic side to a mimimum in order to reduce their vulnerability to anti-celestial magics--Cliffracerslayer 20:58, December 15, 2010 (UTC) Devas as symbionts Here's my take, based on the information I've gleaned: devas are symbionts which inhabit the bodies of aasimar. (Kind of like the Trill in Star Trek.) Aasimar are mortal, and thus are born, live, and die, but the deva symbiont is reincarnated in a new aasimar host after its "death". Maybe explaining it in these terms will clarify what is currently a very chaotic article. Thus, given that devas and aasimar are actually two separate creatures, I vote to split the article. StarSword 01:50, July 17, 2010 (UTC) I definitely support the splitting of the article. The only problem with the new deva article is that it still does not clarify the manner by which the Deva are reborn. The picture suggests that they are reborn from pools of water, but that is all. --Cliffracerslayer 20:42, December 15, 2010 (UTC) 4e Deva Greetings all. I've begun DM'ing 4e games and have played a 4e Deva character into a paragon path thus far. As far as an article goes for this wiki the Deva should certainly have it's own listing. It is my opinion that the difference in 3e and 4e is the deciding factor here. I do not have the 3e books around but I am under the assumption that the Aasimar were not 'immortal' and had a few other distinguishing characteristics that make the 4e Deva stand apart. --Sergenthude 03:02, August 14, 2010 (UTC) Merging deva and deva (angel) Looking over the 5th edition Monster Manual it appears that 4e devas and pre-4e devas have been re-merged back into the same creature. Specifically, I'm referring to this passage from the "Angels" section: The illustration for devas on page 16 also ''very closely resembles 4e devas, with the addition of wings. Empyreans in the meantime seem to be filling a middle ground role between aasimar and 4e devas, seemingly as the "good" equivalent to cambions (who are now half-fiends regardless of specific heritage). I'm sure few would really mind if I remerged the two articles on my own, but I wanted to bring this up in a public forum rather than acting unilaterally, since it would be a pretty big change to both articles. Niirfa-sa (talk) 00:42, October 5, 2014 (UTC) :I don't about 4th and 5th edition devas, but that description really seems to hark back to 3rd edition and earlier devas. 4th edition devas meanwhile still seem to me to be a very different beast, as a playable race like aasimar. :I wouldn't take artwork as definitive of anything: it's often reused, mismatched, varies with artist, or is grandfathered in from previous editions (writer copies pre-4e lore, artist copies 4e art). :So, I'd prefer the two articles for the different devas remain separate, so the conflicting lore remains distinct. — BadCatMan (talk) 08:20, October 5, 2014 (UTC) :::I'll see about shooting WotC a question then. Sometimes the lore is vague enough that author clarification is required. The main thing that grabs my eye is that devas apparently spend a lot of time among mortals, often in mortal form and this seems to match fairly close to the idea of devas in 4e as angels that are incarnated into humanoid for a temporary time. The main distinction (besides a few differences in abilities) seems to be that 4e devas explicitly experience a cycle of death and rebirth between mortal lives (recalling the name's Hindu origin) while nothing seems to indicate 5e devas do. :::I'll admit it's not clear-cut though and your point about the art not necessarily meaning much is a good one. Niirfa-sa (talk) 08:58, October 5, 2014 (UTC) ::::Actually, the bit about spending time with mortals seems right out of the ''Fiend Folio'''s movanic deva, perhaps the most classic angel of the devas: "When at peace among mortals, they prefer to take the form of a humanoid or animal." The Material Plane is also one of their major duties. — BadCatMan (talk) 09:37, October 5, 2014 (UTC) :::::Aha, good catch! Niirfa-sa (talk) 18:34, October 5, 2014 (UTC) ::::I used a movanic deva as an NPC once. She appeared as a talking fish. :) — BadCatMan (talk) 09:50, October 6, 2014 (UTC)